When it comes to the issue of religion, one needs to tread lightly. It, of course, varies from region to region exactly how it is perceived, and how careful one has to be when discussing theological matters. However, it cannot be denied that, especially because of the international form terrorism has taken, no place is, nowadays, safe from the more violent of its followers.
Depending on where one is, and depending on what side one is on (and it must be remembered that there aren’t two, but multiple sides), what to say and how to behave change, but none more so than when one perpetrates an act that is, in some form, related to religion.
And as the world turns, and we invent more labels to identify people, it gets divided into smaller and smaller sects, leading us to what could potentially be a very anarchic representation of the world. Religion, in this case, is no exception.
Depending on the viewpoint one wants to enforce -- it can be, for example, Muslims vs other religions, Hindus and Muslims versus Christians, fundamentalists versus non-fundamentalists -- one changes the team one belongs to.
But, most permeating of all, is the theists versus atheists dichotomy. Except for certain parts of northern Europe, being an atheist who has come out of the closet can be a very dangerous thing to be. No matter what you do, how you were brought up, or where you are, except for a few exceptions, there is no denying that atheists have a bad rep.
In various Islamic nations, atheism is punishable by death for men, and life imprisonment for women. In 2014, the leader of the UN’s Human Rights Council, who just celebrated their new year with a whopping 47 executions, passed a royal decree deeming atheists to be “terrorists.”
In the West, though it is not as dire, atheists are discriminated against legally (in seven states in the US, atheists aren’t allowed to hold office), are forced to undergo some form of religious indoctrination or influence due to a lack of separation of church and state, and are oftentimes social outcasts.
And this brings us to the atheist question.
A lot of this, I believe, is a lack of understanding on some people’s part with what atheism really constitutes. What exactly is an atheist, a heretic, an infidel?
In the same manner that religious people are not represented by the acts of a few violent terrorists, atheists too, cannot be defined with a blanket description of their character.
In its simplest form, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God. But it is not as simple. Some want to believe, but see no proof of their existence.
Some are against the very notion of religion itself. Some are agnostics, who are torn between two sides. Some believe in some kind of God, but not God as some others may know it.
And to some, this very notion seems to be so ridiculous an assumption as to justify murder. For the so-called “moderates,” this results in various reactions which aren’t altogether mutually exclusive. For some, a lack of religion is equated with a lack of morality.
Some pity them their lack of “understanding.” Others consider them know-it-alls who don’t really “know” anything, or see them as bad influences, or do not get why they need to “offend” and can’t just keep it to themselves.
Getting offended by what someone else believes is a ridiculous notion that has long overstayed its welcome. It is akin to expecting atheists to be offended because your point of view contradicts his or hers.
But, whatever their reaction is, it is indubitably negative. Atheism, in whatever form, carries connotations which don’t gel with most people’s definitions of goodness.
One presumes that is it the question of morality which truly results in the discrimination that atheists face. Since there is no higher power dictating what is objectively “good” or “bad,” wouldn’t an atheist just do whatever the hell he wants, with complete disregard for society and his or her fellow human beings?
Can atheists, really, be good?
Though it is true that atheism doesn’t have a written moral code, it does not mean that atheists are devoid of morality. Now, many see what is written in the holy books as God’s word and, as a result, the morality in it absolute, but fail to see how others may not be able to see it in the same light they do. Morality, whether it comes in written form or not, is inherently personal.
This is evident in the very existence of the varying degrees of religiosity and fundamentalism that we find steeped in our society. Some, despite understanding various key and unshakeable tenets, choose to ignore them or not follow them purely because it is incompatible with modern life. Despite some people’s assertion that morality is set in stone, it is, in fact, evidently clear, as time goes on and our perceptions and views and ideas of what is acceptable or not change, that it is anything but.
Discrimination against women and slavery are only two of the many things that some religions perpetuate but which no longer have any place in the world we live in now.
As a result, an atheist derives his morality in the same way the rest of us do: Through experience and empathy. Through treating people the same way he or she would want to be treated.
It must be understood that morality, or lack thereof, is not a result of atheism in the same way some people draw their directly from religion, and their faith, or lack thereof, is not tied up with how they choose right from wrong. It is only one of the many ways our language has labelled them.
There is no denying, however, that we are presented with a paradox, since many religious tenets reject the very veracity of the claim non-believers make, considering them people of the worst kind, and, as mentioned above, want them to be executed.
But that is a paradox we can ignore, if only we can allow ourselves to give in to the morality within us, to logic, so that we can understand that atheists, too, are just people, like anyone else, trying to find the truth.
